Date of filing:29.1.2013
Date of Disposal:6.2.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014.
C.C.No.44 OF 2013.
Between :
Ketheneni Venkateswara Rao, S/o Venkaiah, Hindu, 50 years, Advocate, D.No.29-19-67A, Dornakalroad, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada – 2
….. Complainant.
And
1. Sri Kanaka Durga Automobiles Ltd., Near Benz Circle, M.G.Road, Vijayawada – 10 Rep., by its Managing Director.
2. Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Private Limited, Plot No.1, Sector 3, IMT Manager, Gurgaom District, Haryana State, Rep., by its Managing Director.
…..Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 23.1.2014 in the presence of Sri A.Sudhakara Rao, Counsel for complainant and Sri V.Lakshmi Narayana, Counsel for opposite parties and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1. The averments of the complaint are in brief:
The complainant wants to purchase Honda Activa Delux vehicle for his regular use and he approached the 1st opposite party, who is the dealer of the 2nd opposite party at Vijayawada. The 1st opposite party informed the complainant that the said vehicle is not ready available with them and if the customer booked the said vehicle on payment of advance of Rs.1,000/- they will supply the required model vehicle on the priority basis, i.e., first booking, first delivery basis and they also represented the complainant that they will supply the vehicle approximately within three months or six months. Believing the 1st opposite party the complainant booked for white colour Activa (Deluxe) with the 1st opposite party on 25.6.2010. The complainant waited for six months and enquired the 1st opposite party about the delivery of the vehicle, but there was no response from them. The complainant came to know that the 1st opposite arty delivering the vehicles over-looking the priority and he also came to know that the 2nd opposite party supplied vehicles and the 1st opposite party selling the same at higher rates to non-booking customers. Therefore the complainant sent a registered notice to the 1st opposite party on 8.7.2011 asking the status of order for booking of the said vehicles and also furnish the list of vehicles supplied by the 2nd opposite party. Both the opposite parties received the said notice and kept quiet. In the said circumstances the complainant sent another notice on 1.3.2012 demanding the opposite parties to deliver the vehicle as per the priority and pay compensation for non-delivery of the vehicle as per the booking order, but there was no response from either of the opposite parties which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite parties praying the Forum to direct the opposite parties to deliver the Honda Activa Deluxe (While colour) or the price fixed in the booking form dated 25.6.2010 i.e., Rs.50,982/-; to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and to pay costs.
2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their versions.
The version of the opposite parties are in brief:
The opposite parties denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the complainant approached the 1st opposite party for purchase of white colour Active (Deluxe) in the month of June, 2010 and paid an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards advance at that time and the sales representatives of the opposite parties clearly stated that the vehicle may be delivered basing on the supply of the product and stated that the expected date of delivery is approximately 3 to 6 months. Accordingly they intimated to the complainant number of times through telephone about the expected date of delivery is so and so. But the complainant not responded properly for any call and he did not come forward to take delivery of the vehicle and making false allegations against the opposite parties. The opposite parties deliver the vehicles on first cum first serve. The 1st opposite party is ready to give delivery of the vehicle on payment of cost of the vehicle of Rs.57,000/- by deducting the advance amount of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant before this Hon’ble Forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties towards the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. On behalf of the complainant he gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 and on behalf of the opposite parties Mr.A.Gopi Chand, Authorized Person of the 1st opposite party gave his affidavit and no documents were marked.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties
towards the complainant in not delivering the Honda Activa (Deluxe) vehicle to
him within 6 months even though he paid advance of R.1,000/-?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. On perusing the material in hand the complainant booked the Honda Activa (Deluxe) vehicle with the 1st opposite party by paying Rs.1,000/- as advance and get receipt and booking form under Ex.A.1 dated 25.6.2010, and he was informed by the 1st opposite party that the said vehicle is not readily available and it takes time for 3 to 6 months for delivery. The complainant says that he waited for 6 months and enquired the 1st opposite party about the delivery of the vehicle but there was no response from the 1st opposite party. The complainant says that he came to know that the 2nd opposite party is delivering the vehicles but the 1st opposite party is selling them on non-priority at higher rates to non-booking customers. Therefore he sent a registered notice to the 1st opposite party on 8.7.2011 under Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 postal receipt asking the status of order for booking of the said vehicles and also furnish the list of vehicles supplied by the 2nd opposite party. The opposite parties received the said notices but kept quiet. The complainant sent another notice under Ex.A.4 dated 3.10.2012 and postal receipts Ex.A.5 demanding to furnish the information which he required in Ex.A.3 otherwise he will be proceed to the court of law. The 1st opposite party received the said notice under Ex.A.6 acknowledgement.
7. The opposite parties says that on receiving the booking of the vehicle amount Rs.1,000/- after six months the representatives of the opposite parties informed the complainant to come and take delivery of the vehicle. But there was no response from the complainant and did not come forward to take delivery of the vehicle. The opposite parties deliver the vehicles on first-cum, first serve. The 1st opposite party is ready to deliver the vehicle to the complainant on payment the cost of the vehicle Rs.57,000/- by deducting advance amount of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
8. On hearing the parties the allegation of the complainant that the 2nd opposite party delivering the vehicles but the 1st opposite party is selling them on non-priority at higher rates to non-booking customers. But there is no documentary evidence to say that the 1st opposite party are selling the vehicles for higher prices to non-booking customers. We, the Forum have gone through Ex.A.1 booking form and noticed that the total amount of the vehicle is Rs.54,579/- on 25.6.2010 and also noticed that tentative date of delivery, and expected date subject to availability. We are of the opinion that the complainant paid advance booking Rs.1,000/- but it may not be possible to the 1st opposite party to give for the same rate as is on six months back only on receiving Rs.1,000/- as advance. If the complainant paid the full sale consideration at the time of booking, then he is entitled for the old rate. The complainant booked the vehicle on 25.6.2010 and now asking to deliver the vehicle at old price as it was on 25.6.2010. The 1st opposite party is ready to deliver the vehicle to the complainant on payment of present price Rs.57,000/- by deducting advance of Rs.1,000/-. Therefore we cannot press the 1st opposite party to deliver the vehicle for old price. Therefore we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties towards the complainant and the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed by him. Accordingly these points are answered.
POINT No.3:-
In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost. The complainant is at liberty to get delivery of the said vehicle on payment of present price at the Forum or at the show room of the 1st opposite party if he wants.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 6th day of February, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 K.Venkateswara Rao, D.W.1 A.Gopi Chand Complainant Authorized Person,
(by affidavit) of the 1st opposite party,
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 25.06.2010 Book form along with receipt for Rs.1,000/-.
Ex.A.2 08.07.2011 Photocopy of letter from the complainant to the opposite
party.
Ex.A.3 11.07.2011 Two postal receipts.
Ex.A.4 03.10.2012 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.5 04.10.2012 Two Postal receipts.
Ex.A.6 . . Postal acknowledgement.
For the opposite parties:-
None.
PRESIDENT
